Paul Krugman: The Nation's most dangerous Economist.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

Quote from Tsing Tao:

And the gauntlet lays on the ground. Surprise.

What I said was "None of the posters on the left here (on this site)". And I maintain that assertion.
And I maintain that you don't know. *shrug*
 
It will come, they were the most heavily taxed state in the nation, combined with the fact that they had a 30 billion dollar budget shortfall he had to fix he had to cut tons of GOVERNMENT jobs, businesses will move back once they gain confidence that he will be there for a while, or do you think these businesses fleeing California for states like Texas and lower taxes is just a statistical anomally?

Do you really think people would be bitching at Obama if he had balanced the budget and unemployment was the same level it is right now? The reason people are bitching at Obama and the left is because on top of spending an extra 6 trillion dollars, and doing absolutely jack shit about the deficit job creation is brutal. Hell, If Obama had balanced the Budget while decreasing taxes, and unemployment was a full percentage point higher (9.1%) i would vote for him.

The fact is he spent like a drunken sailor and we got nothing for it.

Quote from Ricter:

Lol, he's gotcha good I see.

Anyway, Christie's got a balanced budget. But where's the Jersey Comeback?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

What is it that I don't know again?

Or is that just...

ricterr.jpg

Ricky never met a government program, entitlement, deficit, tax or debt he didn't like.

How someone could degenerate into such a mindset I'll never know.
 
Quote from Ricter:

The word you're looking for starts with 'e'. (Hint: see the thread title.)

So, you're saying that I "don't know economics?" Care to narrow that down or are you just making a blanket statement? Because, last I checked, you have been schooled in every single economics "debate" you and I have had.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

So, you're saying that I "don't know economics?" Care to narrow that down or are you just making a blanket statement? Because, last I checked, you have been schooled in every single economics "debate" you and I have had.
But blanket statements are ok if they're true, right?
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:


I think Krugman purposely and disingenuously conceals contrary evidence from his readers. He doesn’t want readers to ponder for themselves. Here is another trait that is very unscientific: He wants simply to be venerated, a rock star, the Mick Jagger of economics (sadly, we missed out on Mick Jagger becoming the Mick Jagger of economics when he dropped out of the London School of Economics to sing in a band in 1963).

Krugman is no longer an academic professing his opinions on a chosen field, he is incredibly ideological and serve merely as a political tool of the administration. Why should he be allowed to hide under the mask of being an "academic" without the burden of political office? There is no reason to do so and he should be treated as such. Dig up his personal life as they did to Obama, Cain, Romney and any other guy running for office. They need to hound his ass, research his entire life, find out what he did in intimate detail, did he smoke crack? did he cheat on his exams in high school? where did he get his idelogical underpinnings? were any of his ancestors Communists or convicted of Un-American activities? Has he ever screwed hookers? Nothing should be out of bounds. Day in, Day out, exert pressure on him, find out what transgressions he has committed in his private life( everyone has some) and try to make him lose his tenure by finding out any serious misconduct he might have engaged in. Plagiarism, Fraud, Deceit, anything.

If he wants to continue making political statements, then treat him like a politician, he should not be permitted to hide under his "Nobel Prize".
 
Back
Top